Anil Dubey @ Bhuar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77763 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-628 Year-2022 Thana- SASARAM MUFFSIL District- Rohtas ====================================================== Anil Dubey @ Bhuar Son Of Madan Dubey Resident Of Village- Kathadihari, P.S.- Sasaram (Mufassil), District- Rohtas, Pin-821113. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sushmita Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 19-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sasaram (M) P.S. Case No. 628 of 2022, lodged on 22.12.2022, under Sections 341/323/307/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against six named accused persons including the present petitioner. The allegation against the present petitioner is of firing gun shot to the son of the informant due to which he sustained injury and treatment is going on.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77763 of 2023(4) dt.19-03-2024 2/3 petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel submits that from the content of the FIR it becomes clear that the informant and the petitioner are agnate and for the land dispute the scuffle took place resulted into the present occurrence in which the informant's son became injured. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 17.01.2023 and is accused in one more criminal case, in which he is on bail. Counsel submits that charge has already been framed.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.
6. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that evidence has been started and due to the firing made by the present petitioner informant's son was injured and still under treatment. He further submits that there is continuous threat from the petitioner for not to adduce the evidence.
7. In this background, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within six months. If the trial is not concluded within the said period, the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77763 of 2023(4) dt.19-03-2024 3/3 shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./- U T